Back
BEFORE THE STATE CONSU,I/IER DISPUTE
COMMIS;SION :
ODISHA , CUTTACK.
RED
'.; I
FIRST APPEAL NO.
OF 2012
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION I5 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
,l eB6)
FROM THE ORDER OF DtSTFi.tCT FORUM. RAYAGApA
l. Eost coost Roilwoy, represerrted through its Generol
lvlonoger, Bhuboneswor, Dist ; Khurdo.
2. Ihe Divisionol Roilwoy mcncger, Eost Coost Roilwoy,
Visokhopotnom, Andhro Prcrdesh.
3. Senior Section Engineer,
Eost Coost Roilwoy,Royogcrdo.
Appellonts
-Vu=rsus-
Sri Gouri Jeno, Son of Lote Goiroj Jeno,
Pon Shop, Opp Telephone Exchonge Rood,
P.O./Dist ; Royogodo, Stote: Odishrr, Pin - 76500.l.
Respondeni.
la
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
Mr B.Moharana, learned Ce
a! Govt. counsel files
memo of appearance on behalf o the appellants, which is
accepted and kept on record. R
ndent is absent on
call. Since this is a matter of 2Ol
we have go:. through
tter on merit.
ounsel.
the records and disposed of the
Heard learned Central Govt.
2. The case of the complainant i that East Coast Railway
13'S,)
has leased out the Western si
Rayagada to different person
demanded by the Railways was
in whose favour the lands were
Railway authorities also colle
making/using the said land for
of railway lands at
for which the rent
ly paid by the persons
released on lease. The
!icence fees for
ommercial purpose of
od was till 31.3.201J.
10 suddenly,
I
various types and the
I
I
-l- When+he-said lease was
ORDER WITH SIGfiIATURE
the OPs along with R.P.F. staff
demolished the structures with
the complainant to remove his
premises. Challenging the said
complainant filed comPlaint
District Forum, RaYagada in CC C
prayer to pay suitable comPen
to rehabilitate the comPlainant.
3. OPs filed their writte
allegations made in the comPl
the OPs have not given any I
license basis to the comPl
31.3 .201.1,. ComPlainant has no
tearned forum as to how he go
and the comPlainant is onlY T
T',"'
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
the help of local Police
t giving any chance to
longings from the said
tion of opp.parties the
etition before learned
se No. 68 of zott with
on by way of moneY and
version denYing the
int petition stating that
ailway land on lease or
inant validating uP to
brought to the notice of
occupied the RailwaY land
espasser or unauthorized
note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
occupant of Railway land. The
h receipt enclosed to
petition does not establish that
of the Railway land. The local
e is a bonafide licensee
authorities i.e. District
administration demolished the
an encroachment on the State
ure where there was
igh Way. lt is the State
Govt. and local authorities who
for rehabilitation of the complain
ould take steps if any
nt and not the OPs. The
OPs have not violated the profvisions of fundamental
rights and also principles of natur[tlustice and hence, are
not liable to pay any compensatfon to the complainant.
So, there is no any deficiencrT in
ice on their part.
4. After hearing the matter,l learned Forum below
passed order holding that
"ln view of the progro
of the Govt. for the Urbon
e opp.parties connot be
Development, the action of
chollenged before the District
1 /\' ir'i of thb'Govt."
rum becouse this is o policy
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
I
sl. ls.
of
ORDER WITH SIGilIATURE
Further passed following order.
"However, the victims ore
are directed to rehobilitqte th
violoting their fundamentol rig
them may be considered bY the
Challenging the said order, the a
this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel, for
6. Learned counsel for the aP
complainant Gouri Jena, RaYag
permission by RailwaYs for oc
Rayahgada (Orissa) He further s
no right to transfer his limited
the complaint Petition is not m
that the opP.Parties have fi
affidavit stating that for cons
I
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
t lorge and os such the OPs
in suitoble ploce without
and the loss suffered bY
priate outhoritY."
pellants have preferred
ppellants.
ellants submits that the
was never given any
ation
bmits
of
